Novelist and journalist Dave Hill

May 29, 2007

Peter Hitchens & The Disenfrenchised Right

Today, The Guardian gives the Mail On Sunday columnist space to air his view that Blairism, far from being the successful result of Labour moving to the right politically, has simply been the triumph of the left by other means, both culturally and economically, and that Cameron is part of the same trend:

"Those who were once represented by the Labour right and the Tory right are the only losers from this smooth pact. The new establishment's plans are based on the belief that, denied a voice in parliament or in broadcasting, these ancient forces of conservatism offer no threat and can be ignored. Even if Labour loses the next election - which is by no means sure - Mr Cameron can be trusted not to turn back the clock by a single second. Paradoxically, the danger to Blairism is far greater if the Tories lose, and greater still if they lose badly. For if the Tory party flies apart in a shameful, hope-crushing fourth defeat, the great disenfranchised millions of ex-Labour and Tory voters - who still dare to have rightwing ideas in a nation ruled by liberals - may take the opportunity to find a common cause against the centre in whatever new movement results."

It's his particular take on the "liberal elite" thesis (they've taken over everything, the true values of the nation have been silenced and betrayed and so on). Though not persuaded by this theory, it fascinates me for two reasons. One is that it's a reminder that Blair's critics from the left have failed to give him credit for the amount of money his governments have put into public services or for endorsing many cultural values they cherish, such as women having careers and gay rights. The other is that it asserts that there's a vast, unrepresented quantity of British voters (and non-voters) who long for lower taxes, a smaller state and withdrawal from the EU and whose moral values are much like those that prevailed in the 1950s. Does this group really exist in any numbers? And if it does, what is its potential significance?

I sometimes think that Guardian readers, and I would call myself one, live in a dreamy bubble , in which they think that their liberal progressive ideas should be imposed (by a dictatorship?) on UK society.
Just the Daily Mail itself sells 6 times more copies than the Guardian, and I am sure it knows its readers very well.
I also think that the Guardian journalists (yourself excepted!) just don't get away from London enough.
The Daily Mail is soothing, and a good read if not an intellectual one.

Some Guardian journalists and leaders bore the pants off me with constant blue-scare digs at the Daily Mail ..in reality they are attacking the free thought of the comfortable bungalow dweller....intellectual snobbery??
I am always reminded of the Liberal leader - was it Paddy?- saying "go back to your constitutuencies and prepare for power" ( ironic that this may well be the outcome in 2 years time,albeit shared power..) I think the liberal high tax utopia is some way away.

There's some interesting data somewhere which reveals - I think - that there are more Mail readers who vote Labour than Guardian ones. In fairness to the Guardian re. it's attitude to the Mail, the Mail never ceases attacking the Guardian either. And to the Guardian's credit it does not deploy reporters to investigate the personal lives of Mail journalists...

Interesting data on Labour voters (not that I mentioned Labour)who read the Mail c.w. the Guardian. Perhaps Mail readers don't vote Liberal"the anything you want us to be party", because they're not.
Nice pic in Guido Fawkes of one of the pupils in my grammar school while I was in attendance...http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1288/553/400/heifer.jpg
Another reason to shut down Grammars...